An Incredible Return To Ground Zero Of The Chernobyl Disasterhttp://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-disaster-photos-timm-suess-2012-4/comments
en-usWed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500Tue, 03 Mar 2015 16:20:59 -0500Jana Kasperkevichttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4f8c5efeecad04f63c000002BoratsMon, 16 Apr 2012 14:03:42 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4f8c5efeecad04f63c000002
The city is very sad, hope it can recovery soon.
<a href="http://bit.ly/JrfX6s" target="_blank">http://bit.ly/JrfX6s</a>http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4f88d3db69beddf859000008ChairborneFri, 13 Apr 2012 21:33:15 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4f88d3db69beddf859000008
At least prypriat was destroyed by a nuclear disaster. Detroit was destroyed by the Liberal Welfare State and a criminal class of professional victimshttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4f885775eab8eaaa33000014Milly CooperFri, 13 Apr 2012 12:42:29 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4f885775eab8eaaa33000014
The Palace Of Culture. With color posters of Hollywood movie stars. Fascism is kindergarten with brass knuckles.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4f8833a7ecad04b310000005Adam ColonFri, 13 Apr 2012 10:09:43 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4f8833a7ecad04b310000005
I couldn't disagree more. The human eye biologically has a High Dynamic Range, while cameras and technology has much more limitaitons. HDR photography captures the scene more representative of what you see naturally.
I'm assuming, of course, that the photographer doesn't add too much artistic license to the scene... just a High Dynamic Range... capturing a bright sky with equal detail as the darker foreground.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4f882ee06bb3f7de5b00000fThe DudeFri, 13 Apr 2012 09:49:20 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4f882ee06bb3f7de5b00000f
Haven't had a chance to play s.t.a.l.k.e.r., but the pic at the top of the article had me flashing back to running across that square in a ghillie suit.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4f8829ae6bb3f70f53000001Dick Tater for PresidentFri, 13 Apr 2012 09:27:10 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4f8829ae6bb3f70f53000001
There is no question that high doses of radiation are harmful, but the linear dose theory is incorrect.
<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/" target="_blank">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/</a>
Abstract
The conventional approach for radiation protection is based on the ICRP's linear, no threshold (LNT) model of radiation carcinogenesis, which implies that ionizing radiation is always harmful, no matter how small the dose. But a different approach can be derived from the observed health effects of the serendipitous contamination of 1700 apartments in Taiwan with cobalt-60 (T1/2 = 5.3 y). This experience indicates that chronic exposure of the whole body to low-dose-rate radiation, even accumulated to a high annual dose, may be beneficial to human health. Approximately 10,000 people occupied these buildings and received an average radiation dose of 0.4 Sv, unknowingly, during a 9–20 year period. They did not suffer a higher incidence of cancer mortality, as the LNT theory would predict. On the contrary, the incidence of cancer deaths in this population was greatly reduced—to about 3 per cent of the incidence of spontaneous cancer death in the general Taiwan public. In addition, the incidence of congenital malformations was also reduced—to about 7 per cent of the incidence in the general public. These observations appear to be compatible with the radiation hormesis model. Information about this Taiwan experience should be communicated to the public worldwide to help allay its fear of radiation and create a positive impression about important radiation applications. Expenditures of many billions of dollars in nuclear reactor operation could be saved and expansion of nuclear electricity generation could be facilitated. In addition, this knowledge would encourage further investigation and implementation of very important applications of total-body, low-dose irradiation to treat and cure many illnesses, including cancer. The findings of this study are such a departure from expectations, based on ICRP criteria, that we believe that they ought to be carefully reviewed by other, independent organizations and that population data not available to the authors be provided, so that a fully qualified epidemiologically-valid analysis can be made. Many of the confounding factors that limit other studies used to date, such as the A-bomb survivors, the Mayak workers and the Chernobyl evacuees, are not present in this population exposure. It should be one of the most important events on which to base radiation protection standards.
I. INTRODUCTION
An extraordinary incident occurred 22 years ago in Taiwan. Recycled steel, accidentally contaminated with discarded cobalt-60 sources (T1/2 = 5.3 y), was formed into construction steel for more than 180 buildings containing about 1700 apartments, and also public and private schools and small businesses, in Taipei City and nearby counties. About ten thousand people occupied these buildings for 9 to 22 years. While this construction occurred during 1982–84, most of the buildings were completed in 1983.[1, 2] In this preliminary assessment, we consider 1983 to be the first year of the incident. The radioactive state of the buildings was gradually discovered, beginning on July 31, 1992.[2] Less than 100 contaminated apartments were identified in 1992. The number increased to more than 200 in 1993; then to a total of 896 in 1995, 1206 in 1996, and 1277 in 1997. An intensive research program was conducted in 1998, and more than 1600 apartments were finally documented by the Atomic Energy Council (AEC) of Taiwan. After approximately four cobalt-60 half-lives, most of the apartments now have relatively low levels of radiation, less than 5 mSv (500 mrem) per year, and are still in use today. Half of the residents in apartments with high radiation levels have been evacuated, starting in 1996. They all lived in these buildings for at least nine years, with some staying as long as 22 years.
<a href="http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-09/uoma-urp092011.php" target="_blank">http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-09/uoma-urp092011.php</a>
UMass researcher points to suppression of evidence on radiation effects by 1946 Nobel Laureate
AMHERST, Mass. – University of Massachusetts Amherst environmental toxicologist Edward Calabrese, whose career research shows that low doses of some chemicals and radiation are benign or even helpful, says he has uncovered evidence that one of the fathers of radiation genetics, Nobel Prize winner Hermann Muller, knowingly lied when he claimed in 1946 that there is no safe level of radiation exposure.
Calabrese's interpretation of this history is supported by letters and other materials he has retrieved, many from formerly classified files. He published key excerpts this month in Archives of Toxicology and Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis.
Muller was awarded the 1946 Nobel Prize in medicine for his discovery that X-rays induce genetic mutations. This helped him call attention to his long-time concern over the dangers of atomic testing. Muller's intentions were good, Calabrese points out, but his decision not to mention key scientific evidence against his position has had a far-reaching impact on our approach to regulating radiation and chemical exposure.
Calabrese uncovered correspondence from November 1946 between Muller and Curt Stern at the University of Rochester about a major experiment that had recently evaluated fruit fly germ cell mutations in Stern's laboratory. It failed to support the linear dose-response model at low exposure levels, but in Muller's speech in Oslo a few weeks later he insisted there was "no escape from the conclusion that there is no threshold." To Calabrese, this amounts to deliberate concealment and he says Stern raised no objection.
Calabrese adds, "This isn't an academic debate, it's really practical, because all of our rules about chemical and low-level radiation are based on the premises that Muller and the National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) committee adopted at that time. Now, after all these years, it's very hard when people have been frightened to death by this dogma to persuade them that we don't need to be scared by certain low-dose exposures."http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4f88265aeab8ea8c2800000aicey35Fri, 13 Apr 2012 09:12:58 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4f88265aeab8ea8c2800000a
play the s.t.a.l.k.e.r. games if you want some spooky realistic pripyat dude-shooting action, makes the cod4 level feel as realistic as operation wolfhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4f881d38eab8ea1912000008RBWFri, 13 Apr 2012 08:34:00 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4f881d38eab8ea1912000008
That gave me chills. Damn.
And the fact that some of those buildings are in a video game, depicted accurately from what I am reading, is even scarier.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4f880aa8ecad042839000010Nuclear - NO WAYFri, 13 Apr 2012 07:14:48 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4f880aa8ecad042839000010
"Radiation from Chernobyl and Fukushima Nuclear Accidents Not as Harmful to Wildlife as Feared"
Yeah - try telling that to the 6000 Ukranian children born with relatewd defects each year.
<a href="http://www.chernobyl-international.com/chernobyl-nuclear-disaster/chernobyl-facts-and-figures.aspx" target="_blank">http://www.chernobyl-international.com/chernobyl-nuclear-disaster/chernobyl-facts-and-figures.aspx</a>
Clearly you put your need for energy before others need for life. That makes you an asshole.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4f8801fdeab8eaa256000002What utter bullshitFri, 13 Apr 2012 06:37:49 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4f8801fdeab8eaa256000002
I've been to Prypriat - there's nothing living there which could be safely eaten. Genetic malformation of animals and plants are being seen regulatrly.
Sure nature returns and plants grow - but they're totally fucking useless you 2 bit moron.
Stop acting like a shill for the Nuclear industry - unless you're prepared to move your family out there - I'd shut the fuck up you lying wretchhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4f87e3e5eab8eaca19000004JustMeFri, 13 Apr 2012 04:29:25 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4f87e3e5eab8eaca19000004
HDR is for distorting reality! That's why i find it intresting. It adds artistic view for the photos.
Althought, people seem to think that "distorting reality" in pohot is against "real" photographying,
the truth is that so called old-school dudes used to do it in the dark-room too!http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4f87d0ce6bb3f7cd31000007bheshajFri, 13 Apr 2012 03:07:58 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4f87d0ce6bb3f7cd31000007
Incredible.... You play COD a few times and it feels like you been there before. Got to give it to COD designers, they did a pretty good job on details.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4f87c4f6eab8ea3e57000003gldFri, 13 Apr 2012 02:17:26 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4f87c4f6eab8ea3e57000003
Westinghouse AP1000. Wiki thathttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4f87af8a69bedde04c000001JeffTheJeffFri, 13 Apr 2012 00:46:02 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4f87af8a69bedde04c000001
Love it - I was thinking about the CoD 4 thing too.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4f879c236bb3f74b53000005Ian, RussThu, 12 Apr 2012 23:23:15 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4f879c236bb3f74b53000005
Can't stand HDR photographs. Completely distorts the reality.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4f879be0eab8eade7800003fericvThu, 12 Apr 2012 23:22:08 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4f879be0eab8eade7800003f
The Palace Of Culture. With color posters of Great Leaders. Fascism is kindergarten with brass knuckles.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4f877e9aecad045841000013Dick Tater for PresidentThu, 12 Apr 2012 21:17:14 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4f877e9aecad045841000013
Two things:
It looks like the feral Ukrainian monkeys really busted up the place, like ours did in Detroit.
Photos taken in winter when everything looks dead. How about early summer to show all the green of nature.
Wildlife Thriving After Nuclear Disaster? Radiation from Chernobyl and Fukushima Nuclear Accidents Not as Harmful to Wildlife as Feared
<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120411084107.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120411084107.htm</a>http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4f8770e06bb3f7cb06000001Bus InsiderThu, 12 Apr 2012 20:18:40 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4f8770e06bb3f7cb06000001
Jan,
Nice piece,.
Obviously you've never heard of Kidd of Speed.
<a href="http://www.kiddofspeed.com/" target="_blank">http://www.kiddofspeed.com/</a>